Articles

Bitcoin Loses Steam as Steam Loses Bitcoin

Bitcoin Loses Steam as Steam Loses Bitcoin
Profile photo of Matt McAffrey

bitcoin-dollars-300x200Reprinted from Mises.org

The skyrocketing price of Bitcoin has dominated the financial news for the past few weeks, and the usual suspects are queuing up to offer predictions about its continued rise or inevitable fall. Yet it’s not all good news for fans of the cryptocurrency: in a notable decision, the digital distribution platform Steam has announced that it will no longer be accepting payment in Bitcoin.

In the grand scheme of things, Steam’s new policy will likely have little impact on the use or price of Bitcoin as such. Rather, the decision is significant because it highlights an underlying economic question about the future of the cryptocurrency. Specifically, Steam’s example shows that despite an enormous gain in market value, Bitcoin still has a long way to go before it becomes money.

Money is conventionally defined as a generally accepted medium of exchange, the key part of this definition being “generally accepted.” In order to be adopted on such a large scale, a medium of exchange must fulfil certain basic criteria, the most important of which is that it must be capable of serving as a tool for economic calculation. Entrepreneurs must be able to use a means of payment to compare the costs and benefits of different production plans, and this in turn requires a degree of stability in the value of money. Of course, money’s value is never constant: but it must be dependable. The inability of entrepreneurs to calculate is one reason why extreme price inflation creates widespread social havoc—planning production becomes difficult if not impossible.

One of Mises’s original contributions to monetary theory was the emphasis he placed on money’s role as a medium of exchange. Many others had identified this basic function before Mises, of course, but his approach is distinct in the way it argues that the role of medium of exchange is central, and that money’s other functions—as a unit of account, for example—are derived from it. Money is primarily a means of facilitating peaceful social cooperation, and in this sense is an indispensable part of any advanced division of labor as well as of economic calculation.

This brings us back to Bitcoin. At the moment, Bitcoin is still a minority means of payment, and Steam’s decision helps to illustrate why: Bitcoin does not at the moment satisfy the calculation criterion. As the Steam Team notes:

Historically, the value of Bitcoin has been volatile, but the degree of volatility has become extreme in the last few months, losing as much as 25% in value over a period of days. This creates a problem for customers trying to purchase games with Bitcoin. When checking out on Steam, a customer will transfer x amount of Bitcoin for the cost of the game, plus y amount of Bitcoin to cover the transaction fee charged by the Bitcoin network. The value of Bitcoin is only guaranteed for a certain period of time so if the transaction doesn’t complete within that window of time, then the amount of Bitcoin needed to cover the transaction can change. The amount it can change has been increasing recently to a point where it can be significantly different.

The unpredictable changes in the value of Bitcoin mean that it is now extremely difficult for consumers or producers to gauge the true cost of their transactions, or to make an educated judgment about the best time to buy or sell. Increasing transaction fees for paying in Bitcoin further complicate the issue, especially in regard to relatively small purchases (a major concern for Steam).

At the moment, commentators seem intent on convincing each other of their predictive powers regarding Bitcoin’s price, and everyone wants to be on “right side of financial history.” The vital question though is not around what price Bitcoin will ultimately settle, but if and when it will settle at all, especially compared to its competitors. For the time being, however, the extreme changes in Bitcoin’s price mean that although it might be a good investment, it will not soon become money.

Steam’s decision thus nicely underlines a point that Mises was fond of repeating: entrepreneurs and others who are involved in practical economic affairs often know more about prices and what they mean for the economy than the pundits watching from the wings.

Articles
Profile photo of Matt McAffrey

Matt McCaffrey is a post-doc in Liberal and Integrative Studies at the University of Illinois, Springfield. He received his PhD in economics from the University of Angers.

More in Articles

homeless_jesus_sm-249x300

The Rise of the West

Robert HiggsJanuary 19, 2018
ship-300x242

The Anti-Imperialist League and the Battle Against Empire

Thomas E. Woods Jr.January 18, 2018
wall_street-300x224

The Money-Velocity Myth

Frank ShostakJanuary 17, 2018
market

Opportunity and the Entrepreneur

Peter KleinJanuary 16, 2018
The_Soviet_Union_1968_CPA_3606_stamp_('Did_You_Volunteer'_Poster_(D.Moor,_1920)_and_Young_Red_Army)

The Death Cult of Collectivism

Ludwig von MisesJanuary 15, 2018
Bitcoin-coin2-300x230

In Defense of Bitcoin Hoarding

Jeffrey TuckerJanuary 12, 2018
Federal_Reserve (1)

Did “Tight” Fed Policy Cause the Financial Crisis?

Robert P. MurphyJanuary 10, 2018
depression

America’s Great Depression and Austrian Business Cycle Theory

Richard EbelingJanuary 9, 2018
money

Economic Growth Does Not Pay for Tax Cuts, and Tax Cuts do Not Increase Wages

Kel KellyJanuary 8, 2018